Monetary compensation, not reinstatement, is the appropriate relief for daily wagers after substantial post-termination delay.

The petitioner, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation, challenged the award dated July 15, 2016, passed by the Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior.

The Labour Court had held the termination of the respondent-workman (a daily wager) to be illegal and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service.

The respondent had allegedly rendered approximately ten years of service before his termination on August 23, 2000.

The petitioner contended that the respondent had not completed 240 days of continuous service and argued that, even if the termination were illegal, reinstatement was not an automatic remedy for a daily wager after a significant lapse of time.

1. Whether the finding of fact by the Labour Court regarding the illegality of the respondent's termination warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether reinstatement is the mandatory relief for a daily-wage employee whose termination is found to be procedurally defective after a lapse of more than two decades.

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which prescribes the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of workmen.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, noting that findings of fact based on evidence should generally remain undisturbed.

The precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177, which establishes that for daily wagers whose termination is illegal due to procedural defects (such as violation of Section 25-F), reinstatement is not automatic and monetary compensation is often the more appropriate relief, especially when a long period has elapsed since the termination.

The High Court declined to interfere with the Labour Court's finding that the termination was illegal, categorizing it as a finding of fact based on the material on record.

The Court found the direction for reinstatement to be legally flawed. It reasoned that reinstatement is not a mechanical consequence of illegal termination for daily-wage or temporary employees.

Applying the rationale from BSNL v. Bhurumal, the Court noted that the respondent was not a permanent employee and that twenty-six years had passed since his termination in 2000.

The Court determined that at such a late stage, reinstatement would be neither pragmatic nor conducive to industrial harmony.

The Court held that the Labour Court's mechanical grant of reinstatement failed to consider the nature of employment and the significant delay in adjudication.

The Court substituted the relief of reinstatement with a lump sum monetary compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs). The petitioner was directed to pay this amount within three months of receiving the order, failing which the amount would carry an interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order until the date of actual payment.